This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. This site is and always will be advert free and I do not expect you to pay me. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07)

Monday, 30 May 2016

This article attests to a new discovery that shows that there is a natural mechanism that makes clouds which suggests that the computer climate models are likely to have underestimated the degree of cloudiness in the preindustrial atmosphere. The result of this is that the models have overestimated the future warming from CO2 emissions.

Sunday, 29 May 2016

This report links to the new paper with a summary. Of course readers of this blog will not be a bit surprised by this as it has been clear from the start that this was the case. This means that any savings in CO2 emissions by the UK are merely a pointless gesture - at great cost!

Friday, 27 May 2016

This article explains. So they seem to be saying that it is already too late to stop it. In that case why is there all the fuss? We might as well go down in comfort and keep warm or cool using cheap coal fired electricity. Of course they don't make that point, how odd!

Wednesday, 25 May 2016

This piece gives the details of the decision. This is an important step and should lead to further approvals leading to cheap reliable energy to keep us warm, provided the government has the sense to use it and ignore the mad Climate Change Committee.

Tuesday, 24 May 2016

At last a few brave MPs are putting their heads above the parapet and warning that the government is about to charge over the cliff on the climate issue. I doubt if it will, by itself, make much difference, but it may encourage a few more to join them and who knows - suddenly the people may wake up to what is planned for their future, such as stopping them from using affordable gas for heating and cooking.

Ministers should delay setting stringent new climate change targets so the UK is not left taking more radical action than the rest of Europe, a group of MPs has warned.
The Government is obliged under the Climate Change Act to set a target by the end of June for cutting UK carbon emissions in the period 2028-2032.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC), its official advisors, have recommended it commit to slashing emissions to 57 per cent below 1990 levels – or about a third below current levels.
It says the plan would require a radical shift toward electric cars, green energy and away from using gas for heating and cooking.

Our extra effort would result in no extra reduction in CO2 emissions across Europe as a whole – just a higher burden on British business and a lower burden on our competitors.MPs' letter to Amber Rudd

In a letter to energy secretary Amber Rudd, seen by the Telegraph, 15 MPs warn that setting the radical target now will simply allow other countries in Europe to get away with doing less.The EU has agreed a headline target to cut the combined emissions of member states by 40 per cent on 1990 levels by 2030, but is yet to carve up individual targets for different countries.
While the UK would be expected to be allocated cuts of greater than 40 per cent, precise levels have yet to be determined. However, the CCC has already confirmed that its proposed 57 per cent cut is “tighter than our estimate of the UK share of the EU 2030 target".
In the letter to Ms Rudd, the MPs warn: “If the UK unilaterally commits to a 57 per cent reduction before these negotiations are complete we would simply reduce the burden to be shared out among other member states.
“Our extra effort would result in no extra reduction in CO2 emissions across Europe as a whole – just a higher burden on British business and a lower burden on our competitors.”

Being in the EU makes it easier and cheaper for the UK to tackle climate change than if we were acting alone. It means we can level the playing field for the benefit of British families and businesses.Department of Energy and Climate Change spokesman

Monday, 23 May 2016

This article has unearthed evidence that completely contradicts the idea that global warming is increasing and that it is caused mainly by man made CO2. No doubt the alarmists will say that this paper is wrong, but then they would say that, wouldn't they?

Sunday, 22 May 2016

This article looks at a new paper which reports on this issue. You would think that in a serious science these issues would merit much consideration, but politics dictates certainty, and so any doubts as to the cause of climate change being other than CO2 must be ignored.

Saturday, 21 May 2016

This report gives the details. It seems there is a very unpleasant campaign in the USA to silence any criticism of the President's line on the climate change issue. Democracy is being by-passed over there, just as in the EU. Though in the EU there is no democracy in the first place.

In addition, the NDCs include elements beyond the energy sector, such as land use change and forestry pledges. Pledges include all greenhouse gases (GHGs), not just the energy-related CO2 emissions discussed here. Largely because of data limitations, EIA does not attempt to model every country individually but instead aggregates countries into 16 world regions. EIA’s projections for energy-related CO2 emissions may change significantly as laws and policies aimed at affecting GHG emissions are implemented and as existing laws are enhanced.

In 1990, the 34 current OECD member countries emitted 54% of worldwide CO2 emissions. Since then, economic growth and increased energy use in the non-OECD member countries have shifted the balance of emissions. The IEO2016 Reference case projects a continuation of the trend, with emissions from non-OECD countries increasing through 2040, while CO2 emissions from OECD member countries remain relatively flat.

Even as energy-related CO2 emissions increase, the average carbon intensity of energy continues to decline. In the IEO2016 Reference case, global carbon intensity is projected to decrease by 0.4% annually, which is a more rapid decrease than the historical annual average 0.3% decline between 1850 to 2008, as noted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a recent report.

In 2012, non-OECD countries emitted 62 million metric tons of CO2 per quadrillion British thermal units (MMmt CO2/quad Btu) of energy consumed. The 2012 carbon intensity of OECD countries was lower, at about 53 MMmt CO2/quad Btu. In the projection, non-OECD countries’ intensity declines faster than that of OECD countries. Even with the more rapid decline, in 2040 carbon intensity of non-OECD countries is still higher than the 2012 carbon intensity of OECD countries.

Energy-related CO2 emissions result from the combustion of fossil fuels: oil, coal, and natural gas. On an energy basis, coal combustion yields higher CO2 emissions than petroleum product combustion, which in turn yields higher CO2 emissions than natural gas combustion. A projected shift from higher carbon intensity fossil fuels toward fuels with a lower carbon intensity accounts for the reduction in carbon intensity. Two major factors drive this shift: growth in the use of renewable energy sources for power generation and a change in the mix of fossil fuels toward natural gas.

Some reports have suggested that the wildfires are directly caused by climate change. No credible climate scientist would make this claim, and neither do I make this claim.

The reason Ms. May made that statement is that she recognizes that legitimate forest fire experts know better than to make such claims. So what do knowledgeable researchers in the field say? The go-to person on this topic is Dr. Mike Flannigan from the University of Alberta. He is an expert on fire and weather/climate interactions.

Dr. Flannigan warns of a future when, according to his research, we will be able to see the effect of climate change on fire frequency. The problem is, as he has also said, science cannot make that claim yet. So the question to be asked is why are the activists making such broad claims when the experts in the field refuse to make the same claims?

From my reading the articles it is clear that many of the journalists were not really listening to what the forest scientists, like Dr. Flannigan, were saying and were instead just looking for quotes to insert into articles that simply reinforced their pre-existing biases. They did not recognize the difference between correlation and causation and so failed to understand what the forest scientists were trying to tell them.

A number of climate activists, meanwhile, are apparently confused by the weather in Alberta. They do not appear to understand that El Nino, not climate change, is responsible for the warm, dry winter. This fact was well-expected as experts predicted the warm, dry winter months ago.

In a final attempt to link climate change to the fire, many activists have alternatively claimed that the recent El Nino itself is the result of climate change. But when you ask the experts they dismiss that claim as well. Consider Dr. Fredolin Tangang who served from 2008 to 2015 as vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and is one of the foremost international experts on El Nino. As he put it:

There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change…El Nino occurrences did not switch in frequency or intensity due to climate change.

Dr. Tangang does acknowledge that an El Nino can enhance the effects of climate change. To paraphrase Dr. Tangang: El Nino frequencies and intensities are not linked to climate change but since El Nino will heat up an area it could have an additive effect. That is, if an area is already hot, then El Nino will make it hotter.

So what actually caused the fire to be so severe? Well it appears to be a combination of the effects of El Nino and historic forest management decisions. To explain: after the Slave Lake fire in 2011 the Alberta Government sought advice on the fire situation. The result was the Flat Top Complex Wildfire Review Committee Report which made a number of recommendations and concluded:

Before major wildfire suppression programs, boreal forests historically burned on an average cycle ranging from 50 to 200 years as a result of lightning and human-caused wildfires. Wildfire suppression has significantly reduced the area burned in Alberta’s boreal forests. However, due to reduced wildfire activity, forests of Alberta are aging, which ultimately changes ecosystems and is beginning to increase the risk of large and potentially costly catastrophic wildfires.

Essentially the report acknowledged that the trees surrounding Fort McMurray are hard-wired for fire and if they are not managed properly then these types of catastrophic fires will become more common. The warm weather may have accelerated the fires season, but the stage was set for such a fire and not enough work was done to avoid it.

I have been repeatedly asked: “what does it hurt to say that the fire was caused by climate change?” Well, the whole point of the Flat Top Complex Report (which was written in 2011-2012 remember) was to help identify ways to avoid future catastrophic fires like the one that hit Fort McMurray.

As a pragmatist I recognize that we live in a world where our governments have finite budgets and need to allocate resources wisely; to do that they need good information. Bad information makes for bad decisions, and attributing the forest fire to climate change would mean advancing bad information over good. That can only increase the likelihood that policy-makers will make poor decisions which we can all agree is not something we want to see.

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

Reuters, 17 May 2016 Emily Flitter and Steve HollandRepublican presidential contender Donald Trump said on Tuesday he would renegotiate America’s role in the U.N. global climate accord, spelling potential doom for an agreement many view as a last chance to turn the tide on global warming. A pull-out by the world’s second biggest carbon-emitting country would hobble the deal reached in Paris last December by nearly 200 nations, who for the first time in more than two decades found a common vision for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

"I will be looking at that very, very seriously, and at a minimum I will be renegotiating those agreements, at a minimum. And at a maximum I may do something else," the New York real estate mogul said in an interview with Reuters.

"But those agreements are one-sided agreements and they are bad for the United States."

Trump said he did not believe China, the world’s top emitter of the carbon dioxide gas that many scientists believe is contributing to global climate, would adhere to its pledge under the Paris deal.

"Not a big fan because other countries don’t adhere to it, and China doesn’t adhere to it, and China’s spewing into the atmosphere," he said.

The accord to transform the world's fossil-fuel driven economy was a potent signal to investors.

It seeks to limit a rise in global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius through combined national pledges to cut emissions, and provide funding for developing nations to mitigate the damaging effects of a sea level rise and climate change.

The Obama administration pledged a 26 to 28 percent domestic reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025 compared to 2005, while China promised it would halt increases in carbon emissions by 2030. Both countries have promised to ratify the deal this year.

Many U.S. Republicans have found fault with the deal for overreacting to what they see as an uncertain threat.

Former French foreign minister Laurent Fabius, who helped broker the deal, said this month that the U.S. election was critical to its future. "If a climate change denier was to be elected, it would threaten dramatically global action against climate disruption," he said.

Trump has said that he believes global warming is a concept that was invented by China to hurt the competitiveness of U.S. business. One of his energy policy advisers is a climate change skeptic, U.S. Congressman Kevin Cramer of North Dakota.

Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic contender for the White House, has advocated shifting the country to 50 percent clean energy by 2030.

Tuesday, 17 May 2016

This article explains how the Australian climate alarmist leaders are trying to remove a man from his post as leader of an energy company because he once wrote an email supporting the famous Skeptics Handbook. What a ridiculous situation when a person is vilified for supporting a perfectly reasonable position.

Monday, 16 May 2016

This piece from Booker explains how the foolishness of the UK's Climate Change Act is rapidly coming back to bite the politicians who passed it back in 2008. To meet the Act’s 80 per cent target in 2050, between 2028 and 2033 Britain must raise its emissions cuts to a staggering 57 per cent. It talks of how 60 per cent of our cars should by then be electric (currently these are barely half a per cent of new cars sold). We must look forward to abandoning use of gas for heating and cooking (currently supplying 90 per cent of us). It is indeed a terrifying prospect. Of course the government could reject these proposals, but I wouldn't bet on it. Neither would Christopher Booker.

Sunday, 15 May 2016

I know this blog is supposed to be about climate science, but today I am going to give a plug to an important movie that is now available on youtube "Brexit The Movie". For those who think that it is not important to leave the EU, or who have not made up their minds this is a must watch. The producer is Martin Durkin who made the seminal film "The Great Global warming Swindle" which was aired on UK TV a few years ago. That film is still available - there is a link on the side bar which hopefully still works. Martin is a highly effective film maker.

There are many links between the EU and global warming alarmism. Both have a strong negative effect on the UK and both cannot normally be changed by a vote - except that this June we have a referendum on EU membership - just one chance in 40 years!

Saturday, 14 May 2016

This post explains that Yorkshire councillors are expected to endorse the finding of their planning officers at a meeting to be held next Friday. At last some good news for the UK's energy, as long as the councillors hold their nerve and don't give in to the mob. They are supposed to be made of strong stuff in Yorkshire. My wife's family came from there and they were certainly in that mould.

Friday, 13 May 2016

This post explains the study. It is interesting to note that scientists know so little of these effects and yet claim to be so confident that they know enough to understand how the weather is going to warm catastrophically in the next century.

Thursday, 12 May 2016

The Daily Caller, 5 May 2016Michael BastaschIt’s been nearly one decade since former Vice President Al Gore released his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” It sent shockwaves through American politics and emboldened environmental activists to push for more regulations on American businesses. Gore warned increasing carbon dioxide emissions would spur catastrophic global warming that would cause more extreme weather, wipe out cities and cause ecological collapse. To stop global warming, humans needed to ditch fossil fuels and basically change every aspect of their lives.

Watching “An Inconvenient Truth” is sort of like going back in time. Back to a world where flip phones were cool and “Futurama” was still putting out new episodes. A world where a bitter presidential candidate was trying to rebrand himself as an environmental crusader.

But have Gore’s warnings, which were alarming to many in 2006, come true?

In honor of the upcoming 10th anniversary, The Daily Caller News Foundation re-watched “An Inconvenient Truth” just to see how well Gore’s warnings of future climate disaster lined up with reality.

Gore’s been harping on global warming since at least the late 1980s, but it wasn’t until 2006 he discovered a way to become massively wealthy off making movies about it and investing in government-subsidized green energy.

Gore opens the film talking about nature, then jumping to a presentation he’s giving where he shows the first image ever taken of the Earth from space. From that image, he jumps right into making alarmist claims about global warming.

Kilimanjaro Still Has Snow

One of the first glaring claims Gore makes is about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. He claims Africa’s tallest peak will be snow-free “within the decade.” Gore shows slides of Kilimanjaro’s peak in the 1970s versus today to conclude the snow is disappearing.

In 2014, ecologists actually monitoring Kilimanjaro’s snowpack found it was not even close to being gone. It may have shrunk a little, but ecologists were confident it would be around for the foreseeable future.

“There are ongoing several studies, but preliminary findings show that the ice is nowhere near melting,” Imani Kikoti, an ecologist at Mount Kilimanjaro National Park, told eturbonews.com.

“Much as we agree that the snow has declined over centuries, but we are comfortable that its total melt will not happen in the near future,” he said.Gore Left Out The 15-Year “Hiatus” In Warming

Gore also claims temperature rise from increases in man-made carbon dioxide emissions were “uninterrupted and intensifying.” He goes on to claim heatwaves will become more common, like the one that killed 35,000 people across Europe in 2003.

Satellite-derived temperature data showed, until the recent El Niño, no statistically significant warming trend for more than 21 years. Gore’s movie was released right in the middle of the so-called global warming “hiatus.”

The Weather Hasn’t Gotten Worse

Gore also famously predicted storms would become more frequent and intense as man-made emissions warmed the oceans.

“And of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms,” Gore said in his film. “That same year that we had that string of big hurricanes, we also set an all-time record for tornadoes.”

Gore’s film came out just after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. Indeed, footage of the destruction from that storm featured prominently in Gore’s film. He mentions how the U.S. was hit with a rash of severe storms in the early 2000s and how Japan saw a record number of typhoons.

But Gore’s claim is more hype than actual science, since storms aren’t more extreme since 2006. In fact, not even findings from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) support Gore’s claim. […]

The North Pole Still Has Ice

Gore also claimed the Arctic could be ice-free in the coming decades. He said “within the next 50 to 70 years, it could be completely gone.”

With no Arctic sea ice, polar bears and all sorts of Arctic animals would be threatened, Gore warned, showing an animated scene of a polar bear drowning.

Wednesday, 11 May 2016

This piece explains the details. It seems that most of the "experts" have got most of the facts wrong and we are all paying and will continue to pay a lot more for our electricity than they predicted. And they expect us to trust their judgement? I think not!

Saturday, 7 May 2016

This article explains the conjunction of various climate cycles which all point to the likelihood of cooling in the near future. No doubt those who peddle warmist alarmism will be only too ready to explain this cooling on natural cycles, which is true, but equally true is the possibility that much of the warming that has occurred in the twentieth century can be similarly explained.

Friday, 6 May 2016

This article by James Delingpole is a superb refutation of the views expressed by an American comedian on his TV show. The points made are the ones that are given over and over again by countless celebrities and politicians.

Thursday, 5 May 2016

This piece explains how the EU are in a dilemma with their carbon trading scheme. On the one hand they want industry to pay enough to make them change from fossil fuels to renewables, while on the other hand not so much that they go bust or leave the EU altogether. It is a fine line as they have discovered. If only they could step back and look at the true situation they would see that global warming is not a real problem at all, but then they would have to admit they have wasted billions of pounds and no political leader wants to do that.

Tuesday, 3 May 2016

This article looks at the distortion of climate science for political reasons. This is a good piece by Tim Ball which rightly points out that the IPCC claims massive confidence in conclusions based on very limited understanding of many of the basic parameters which influence the climate.

Monday, 2 May 2016

This article explains how the leaders of our Western democracies, many of them conservatives, decided to push forward the agenda of the global warming hypothesis and the need to reduce CO2 emissions. What appears to have happened is that little or no consideration was given to the huge cost of doing so. It was only when these costs were calculated that our leaders realised that they had opened a massive can of worms, one that they were now incapable of dealing with. It is a sobering look at the recent history and there is a very valuable lesson to be learnt by future politicians, which is that you must be very certain of all the implications before supporting what may superficially seem like a popular and uncontroversial cause.

There is a parallel here with the decision of the UK government to join the Common Market (now the European Union) back in 1972. That also seemed like a good decision at the time. Now years later we realise that what we were told we had signed up to was very different to the reality. If our political leaders had waited a while longer instead of rushing into signing up, they would have been able to see the pitfalls and so avoid them by only agreeing to things that were of direct benefit to the UK. But the problem is that political leaders want to make grand gestures. They are easily seduced by a "quick fix". Much of this behaviour is a result of the short time between elections during which they want to make their mark, usually at our expense later.

Sunday, 1 May 2016

This article explains what the EU's highest court has done. Basically they have said that European industry is not worth protecting. The result will be that more industry will not be able to compete with the developing nations and so will have to close. Time to leave I think!

Translate

Remember when our leaders told us they were certain that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? They are the same people who now say CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic weather. Politicians tell us what they want us to believe.

WELCOME TO A SANE LOOK AT CLIMATE SCIENCE

"Global warming" could be the most costly scare story in the history of man. It is hysterical alarm built on exaggeration and deceit, fuelled by those with a vested interest.Please use the search facility at the top left of the site to find specific articles among over 3800 on the site. Some suggested key topics: clouds, biofuels, hurricanes, windpower, global cooling, emissions, arctic, antarctic, zero carbon, stars, aussies, china, sun, Gore, schools, IPCC, NIPCC, climate models, hockey stick, trust in science.

ARGUMENTS THAT NO WARMIST CAN WIN

Below are two irrefutable arguments that should be top of any climate sceptic's list.

RECENT GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORD

Click here. To see a graph of both surface and satellite temperature; or here for satellite temperature record. Here for satellite records of various sections of the globe. Google Earth global temperatures are here

Followers

SIGN THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION TODAY

Sign HERE for common sense on climate. You can see the massive propaganda behind the "global warming" theory, so please stand up and be counted!

About Me

I have a BSc Honours degree in Applied Chemistry. After working in detergent research for a short while I then spent 17 years teaching science. Following that I ran my own successful property company with my wife Andrea. I am currently a New Forest District Councillor. I was involved in the campaign to try to keep Al Gore's political propaganda film out of English schools.
I have three grown up sons and six grandchildren. Three have now left school while the others are currently (2017) aged 1,7 and 9. I see them regularly and take a great interest in their education.